|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 220
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 3:52 am: |       |
Richard, just curious that he allowed "family" to stay so long without paying for the room.
McCarthy: "I knew the deceased as Mary Jane Kelly, and had no doubt at all about her identity."
Bowyer: "I was ordered by McCarthy to go to Mary Jane's room, No. 13. I did not know the deceased by the name of Kelly."
[Coroner] How long had the deceased lived in the room ? - [McCarthy] "Ten months. She lived with Barnett. I did not know whether they were married or not..."
[Coroner] Did you see the deceased constantly ? - [Bowyer] "I have often seen her. I knew the last witness, Barnett."
Richard, it would seem that McCarthy, Bowyer his assistant, and others in the court knew Joe Barnett by name and sight. Where did it come from that he provided a different name at the time he and Mary rented the apartment?
Shannon |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 366
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 3:55 am: | |
Hi Robert,
Actually I find myself,agreeing with you, that suggestion , although specualtive [ a word that is close to my heart] is entirely possible, It would explain McCarthys reason for patience in the rent arrears, after all receiving stolen goods is a serious offence, and he may have been concerned that if he did not give the couple some leaway, there may well be some repercussions.
Its a intresting point assistant commissioner.
Richard. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 221
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 3:58 am: | |
Robert, like you said, no proof but what if? At this point in Joe's life anything is possible. He may have even been allowed the time after losing his job to contact another of the porters who may have been a bit shady to see if he could make a deal of sorts... Honestly, the possibilities are endless.
Oh for the want of a time machine...
Shannon |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 832
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 6:07 am: | |
G'day,
ROBERT: McCarthy's shed, next door to where Joe & Mary lived, was used to house homeless people who had no money to pay for a bed. After the 'DOUBLE EVENT', the police closed it down because they saw it a temptation for the Ripper. (I got that from 'The Daily Telegraph' 10 Nov.)
I don't know why McCarthy let them have the room that was partitioned from this shed. I also read that Mary faced eviction the morning her body was found. That's why she was so desperate for money the night before.
I don't get it! Why did Barnett return almost daily to give Mary money? Why didn't he give it to the landlord?
LEANNE |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 368
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 2:39 pm: | |
Hi Sarah
Now your starting to think using speculation, which is excellent, I Do it all the time[ as it has been noted] I Happen to believe you proberly have got it spot on, it is not a daydream.
And you are right , what a film it would make, its got everything, romance, jealously,and a real good plot, although I certainly pick a all British cast, and lets get people cast that at least look something like the actual victims.
Now Im dreaming......
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1142
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 3:03 pm: | |
Hi Leanne, Sarah
Perhaps the little money he could give her was meant for food. i agree though that if any of the money was meant to go towards the rent, Joe should logically have given it to McCarthy himself (to stop it disappearing down the pub). Joe should have given McCarthy just enough to keep him sweet for a little while longer.
Sarah, how about David Jason as Abberline? I quite like the idea of Phillip Franks as Barnett, provided he can do an Irish accent. And finally George Best as The Ten Bells.
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 834
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 4:17 am: | |
G'day,
SARAH: Why do think it unlikely that Barnett has the Ripper? Could it be that you don't want Barnett to be the Ripper? That movie plot you imagined could be nearer to the truth than you think. Kate often slept in the empty shed that was next door to Joe & Mary, and may have heard or seen something. MAY HAVE!
I don't know whether to include Emma smith and Martha Tabram in Jack the Ripper's tally. If the Ripper had a mental condition, he would have just needed to read about their deaths to start believing that it was acceptable to end the life of a prostitute.
RICHARD: What about Johnny Depp as Inspector Abberline?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1147
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 5:09 am: | |
Hi Leanne
You may have done this before, and if you have, sorry! But could you point me to the references to Kate's often sleeping in the shed?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 835
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 5:37 am: | |
G'day Robert,
Look at the 'Daily Telegraph', 10 November, the 4th paragraph from the top.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1149
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 3:28 pm: | |
Thanks Leanne. But it doesn't say how often she slept there, does it?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 837
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 6:27 pm: | |
G'day Robert,
No it doesn't. This is one area in which we are going to have to rely on our judgement. If she slept there once, and her name was recorded somewhere once then it's amazing that this reporter found her name. Anyway if these poor people stayed in the shed free of charge, why would their names be recorded?
John Kelly didn't bother asking the police when she'd be released when he heard that she was arrested for being drunk. Two women told him of her arrest and he just assumed she'd be home on Sunday. It 'sounds' like it happened quite often and he wasn't worried about it.
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1151
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 6:57 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Another thing about the shed, is that I imagine it must have either closed at a certain time each night, or closed whenever it was full up - both Nichols and Chapman were walking the streets instead of using it. In Chapman's case, she was very close to the shed, yet still walked off into the night. But if admittance was barred at certain times, would that imply a doorman of some sort? Was this how the newspaper found out about Eddowes?
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 838
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 02, 2003 - 6:56 am: | |
G'day Robert,
Why would anyone want to stay in a shed full of homeless people, when there was still a chance of earning 4 shillings for a bed?
Bruce Paley pointed out that 'Lloyds Newspaper' 7 Oct revealed that Kate: 'slept in a shed off Dorset Street, which is a nightly refuge of some ten to twenty homeless creatures who are without the means of paying for their beds.' There's more but as I am reading straight from the text that will go in..............(I promised I wouldn't use those words, sorry!
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1153
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 02, 2003 - 7:29 am: | |
Aha! Then I will say no more about it, as it will be in your.....
Robert |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 839
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 02, 2003 - 7:46 am: | |
G'day Robert,
I hope that heaps of discussion will be caused by this.....
LEANNE |
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 7:13 pm: | |
It's far more likely someone told a reporter that Eddowes had stayed in the shed than that there were any records. And, of course, just because someone says it doesn't make it so. It's also entirely possible the reporter just made it up to make more compelling reading, which happened all too often. There were lots of things reported in the papers that were just completely wrong, and I suspect that this is one of them. I think that if it were true it would have been reported more widely. It might be true, but I wouldn't count on it. |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 842
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 4:04 am: | |
G'day Dan,
Oh come on! There was someone on the old boards that used to say, everytime someone mentioned something from a newspaper, that it was obviously a lie to sell more newspapers.
Well this 'lie' was mentioned by several newspapers, who didn't write exactly the same thing. So they didn't all copy the same 'lie' from each other.
It's inclusion in a story does nothing to increase the papers 'selling-power', like the 'lie' about Mary Kelly's baby that seeped into one newspaper!
LEANNE
|
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 5:30 am: | |
Richard & Leanne,
No it's not that I don't want Barnett to be JTR, I just don't see it, but then again just because I don't see it doesn't mean he wasn't.
Wow, I'm impressed, I should daydream more often. I could have just solved the case just by being bored at work.
Robert,
Like your casting ideas. Can just imagine David Jason as Abberline!!  |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 225
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 10:00 pm: | |
Sarah, the most compelling evidence against Joe Barnett is that he lived with one victim, across the street from one, next to the shed where one lived, and of all the people in WC, no one (known so far) had so much in common with so many of the victims...
Shannon |
Alexander Chisholm
Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 39
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 10:24 pm: | |
Evening All
I never cease to be amazed by the confidence placed in the Dorset-street shed story by some. As has been clarified on a number of occasions on these boards, regardless of how many newspapers carried versions of the same story, the notion that Eddowes ‘occasionally’ slept in a shed at the front of No 26 Dorset-street originated from a claimed identification by two decidedly dubious witnesses.
The story of Eddowes occasionally seeking shelter in the ‘Dorset-street shed’ first appears in the Daily Telegraph, 3 Oct. 1888. This report was then repeated, virtually word for word, in Lloyds Weekly, 7 Oct. 1888. With Kelly’s murder, the Daily Telegraph once more refers to Eddowes’ supposed Dorset-street connection on 10 Nov. 1888, before the story is again carried by Lloyds Weekly, 11 Nov. 1888.
So, in order to fully appreciate the tenuous nature of Eddowes’ Dorset-street connection, I think the story needs to be considered, once again, at its source.
Daily Telegraph, 3 Oct. p.3 states that Eddowes:
“had times without number been in so abject a state of destitution as to be compelled to share the nightly refuge - a shed in Dorset-street - of a score or so of houseless waifs, penniless prostitutes like herself, without a friend, a name, or even a nickname.”
The same paper later clarifies the origin of this claim, as follows:
“It appears that Detective-Sergeant Outram, of the City Police, came to the mortuary in Golden-lane, with a party of six women and a man. Some of the former had, it is said, described the clothing of the deceased so accurately that they were allowed to confirm their belief by viewing it at the Bishopsgate-street Police-station. Subsequently they were taken to the chief office in Old Jewry, and thence conducted to the mortuary. Here two of the women positively identified the deceased as an associate, but they did not know her by name. She does not seem to have borne a nickname. They were ignorant of her family connections or her antecedents, and did not know whether she had lived with any man. The dead woman had, in fact, belonged to the lowest class, and frequently was without the money to obtain admission to the common lodging-houses. Whenever she was in this impecunious state she had, in the company of the women who now identified her body, slept in a shed off Dorset-street, which is the nightly refuge of some ten to twenty houseless creatures who are without the means of paying for their beds.”
This, I think, is hardly an account to inspire confidence in the reliability of anything these women had to say. So, to confidently claim that Eddowes slept in a shed in Dorset-street, without acknowledging this as an extremely questionable possibility, is, to my mind, affording far too much credence to the reliability of two decidedly dubious witnesses.
Incidentally what the Daily Telegraph, 10 Nov. 1888 actually says is:
“On the right-hand side of the passage there are two doors. The first of these leads to the upper floors of the house in which Kelly was living. It has seven rooms, the first-floor front, facing Dorset-street, being over a shed or warehouse used for the storage of costers’ barrows. A second door opens inwards, direct from the passage into Kelly’s apartment, which is about 15ft. square, and is placed at the rear corner of the building. … Dorset-street is made up principally of common lodging-houses, which provide not less than 600 registered beds. In one of these establishments Annie Chapman, the Hanbury-street victim, lived. Curiously enough, the warehouse at No. 26, now closed by large doors, was until a few weeks ago the nightly resort of poor homeless creatures, who went there for shelter. One of these women was Catherine Eddowes, the woman who was murdered in Mitre-square.”
Best Wishes
alex
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 843
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 1:20 am: | |
G'day,
Even if Kate stayed there just once, she may have seen something, (or heard someone talk of something), that caused her to be concerned but did not think much of it until the next murder.
She may not have seen or heard anything important at all, but told everyone she did. This may have got around to Jack's ears, and he thought that it was safer to eliminate her just-in-case. The mutilation of her eyes may have been his way of paying her back for being so nosey.
If Kate disappeared from John to go on a drinking tour, then drank her lodging money away, why would she pass up a chance to sleep indoors with 10 or 20 other people, around the corner from Flower and Dean Street, free of charge?
LEANNE
(Message edited by Leanne on November 04, 2003) |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 844
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 3:50 am: | |
G'day,
ALEX: How can you say that: 'Had times without number been in so abject a state of destitution as to be compelled to share the nightly refuge - a shed in Dorset Street - of a score or so of houseless waifs, penniless prostitutes like herself, without a friend, a name, or even a nickname.' ('D.T.' 3 Oct.)
is word-for-word the same as: '[13] Miller's Court is really the back parlour of 26 Dorset Street, the front shop being partitioned off and used for the storage of barrows etc. This was formerly left open and poor persons often took shelter there for a night...', ('Lloyd's' 7 Oct.)??????????
Reading the rest of what 'Lloyd's' reported, I can see that six women and one man who also stayed in that shed were taken to the mortuary to identify the body and only recognized her clothes. Joseph Lawende identified Kate as the woman he saw, by her clothing you know. Thanks for revealing a fuller report!
Why don't you have confidence in what these women said? Is it because they were poor or because they were women?
LEANNE
|
Jim
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 10:44 pm: | |
Leanne,
Why do you always support Barnett? You only go by one side of the story.
Isn't it the most affective when you admit some things that are wrong with your suspect?
We can just flip the coin and ask you if the only reason you are supporting Barnett is because you want him to be the Ripper.
|
Dan Norder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 7:48 pm: | |
Leanne,
It's not so much that papers would make things up purposefully (although that did happen at times) but also that they are talking to people who want to be helpful who are mistaken (see Mrs. Maxwell), running across people who just make things up, reprinting what other papers said, and so forth. They also want as much news as possible, understandably, for the public obsessed on the details.
Simply put, I don't think you can take newspaper reports at their word. They all wrote lots of things that turned out to be wrong. Unless this information made it into a police report (and if it did, it'd have to be in some lost files) I just don't consider it reliably.
I know some people prefer to take every little detail any paper printed at its word (assuming it supports their own personal theories anyway), but that's not a good idea. |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 9:17 am: | |
Shannon, Just because Joe was closely connected to some of the vitims, it doesn't prove anything. Unfortunately though I can start to see how he could have been the ripper. I still would like to know how he knew where certain body parts were on the women though. Perhaps someone could explain that to me. Remember these people weren't that well educated so most of them wouldn't have even probably been able to tell you where your heart was let alone anything else. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
